Quantum mechanic

Notes on playing defense in hockey

2013-10-18T00:45:00.000-04:00

Defensive coverage in the attacking zone: When your team playing offense in the attacking zone, you should work with your partner to balance offensive pinching and defensive coverage. The strong side defenseman should play deeper in the zone to participate in the attack and to keep the puck in. The weak side defenseman should play back to cover, in case the play goes the other way.
When you're playing the point in the offensive zone, periodically count the number of opposing players in front of you. It should always be 5. If it's not 5, there's a cherrypicker behind you and the potential for a breakaway.

What physics teaches you

2013-07-29T23:29:00.000-04:00

I've been talking to people outside of physics and a topic that has come up fairly regularly is what general skills does physics teach you. I've spoken with a couple people with bachelor's degrees in physics who are now working in software and they said that physics teaches you systems level thinking. I guess that's a good answer if you're applying to a software job. But I feel like "systems thinking" isn't the most satisfactory answer. If that was all you learned from physics, I don't see why you couldn't study another subject. There must be other academic fields that teach big picture thinking.

So I'm going to try and give my own answer. "What does physics teach you?" Physics prizes knowledge that is universal, enduring, and predictive; information that is too idiosyncratic and transitory is considered "uninteresting." [1] When you study physics, you assimilate these values. You can scan information and pick out the things that are universal and enduring and things that are idiosyncratic and transitory. The former you pay a lot of attention to, and the latter you assign low priority. When you're unsure how to categorize piece of information, you instinctively look for sanity checks.

In general, all serious academic fields value universal, enduring knowledge. However, there is one difference. Physics can predict the future. Physics possesses a bounty of beautiful and (most importantly) wildly accurate mathematical models -- where if you have enough information about the initial state of the system, you can make specific, quantitative predictions about how the system evolves. No other natural or social science has had this kind of success. And having all these successful, sophisticated models leads to a deep understanding of nature. When you study physics to a sufficiently high level, you experience the nirvana of deep understanding. [2] It's hard to become a deep thinker if you don't know what deep understanding looks like. So this is the gift of physics. It's the quantitative field of study that makes deep understanding most accessible. [3]

Studying physics molds you into an efficient, discerning, deep thinker. [4]

[1] Physicists (in my experience) also tend to be pragmatic, rigorous, and suspicious of hype. They're after the truth and reluctant to say things they're unsure of.

[2] If you're like me, that feeling is intoxicating and you want more of it!

[3] You could probably argue that some types of math lead to the same kind of deep understanding and thinking.

[4] When I took freshman physics in college, I picked up these impressions and got a taste of "deep understanding" which is why I ended up majoring in physics over other subjects. I sensed something greater than myself, that transcended human experience. It was a transformative experience and I wanted more.

Song of the day: "The Right Regrets" by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman

2013-05-14T16:46:00.001-04:00

This is another song from the NBC TV show Smash. In general, I haven't really liked the songs in Season 2, but this is a great one. Debra Messing and Christian Borle did a great job acting this song, too. I like the theme about writing, which is unusual.

A writer has the empty page where he can set the scene
He puts the actors on the stage or on the movie screen
The characters all say the words the writer wants to hear
And then my friend; a happy end

But when the writer steps outside that room where he is king
He can't control when lives collide or what the lovers sing
And so he hides behind his words the one place he belongs
And in black and white he can rewrite the wrongs

Where he can find the strength to say what those he loves should hear
And just erase mistakes she's made then make them disappear
Where he can change the plot so he's a hero not a louse
And when the curtain falls there's not a dry eye in the house

A writer hopes to leave behind a work no one forgets
And when he writes the end to find he has the right regrets
A writer has the empty page where he can use his pen
To mend his heart and try to start again

Installing Ubuntu and Debian for a triple-boot machine

2013-04-10T19:30:00.000-04:00

I recently installed Ubuntu and Debian for the first time. Here's how I did it.

The first thing I did was order a second 2.5" hard drive. I chose 320 GB drive, which is the largest size you can get without Advanced Format. I figured that I didn't need tons of space and I didn't want to worry about partitioning issues with an Advanced Format drive. My laptop is a Thinkpad T400. The great thing about Thinkpads is their modular design. Normally, the T series Thinkpads come with a DVD drive, but it is removable. So I took out the DVD drive and swapped it for a second hard drive. I found a third party hard drive adapter for the Thinkpad Serial Ultrabay Slim form factor. This way, I was able to keep my Windows 7 install on my main hard drive and not worry about breaking it with a Linux install.

I followed this partitioning guide and used GParted to split the second hard drive into four partitions: two root partitions (30 GB each for Ubuntu and Debian), a swap partition (8 GB), and a share partition (230 GB). I used Tuxboot to install GParted on a bootable flash drive.

Everything went great up to this point. Following the recommendation on the Ubuntu install page, I used Pen Drive's Universal USB Installer to load up Debian and Ubuntu on bootable USB drives. Then I tried to install Debian Squeeze and it kept failing to find my wifi. I tried my wired connection, but that failed, too. Since I was doing a net install (minimal Debian) off of a USB flash drive, I needed an internet connection to download all the GUIs and other packages which make Debian usable. However, because I had no internet connection, I kept ending up with a "command line" style Debian. I even tried downloading the "non-free" Debian which contains software that hard core Debian people consider proprietary. Didn't work. Ugh. After trying to get this to work all night, I gave up and installed Ubuntu 12.04 LTS on my other root partition. It booted up fine the first time, but the second time, I got a black screen. I finally went to sleep as the sun was rising.

When I woke up, I booted up Windows and remembered that I forgot to change my BIOS settings for the graphics card. My Thinkpad has switchable graphics, meaning that it can switch between integrated graphics and the discrete graphics card. I turned this off and set my computer to always use the discrete graphics card. Then Ubuntu booted up correctly and consistently. As for Debian, I went to the #debian IRC channel and presented my problem. People told me to avoid the current stable release ("Squeeze") and use the testing release ("Wheezy"). In addition, they told me to use the non-free version of Wheezy and to make sure I had all the firmware files for my wifi card. When I followed these directions, Wheezy found my wifi card and installed the packages off the internet. Now I had a desktop for Debian. Finally, I had both Ubuntu and Debian working!!!

The last thing to do was to fix my GRUB screen. The Ubuntu and Debian installers are really smart and automatically added themselves to the GRUB screen, allowing me to triple boot in Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Debian. However, after installing two distros and updating Ubuntu, my GRUB screen contained many useless entries. So I installed the GRUB customizer package on Ubuntu and used that to clean up my GRUB. Here's my edited GRUB screen:

All this work took two days, but in the end, success! In retrospect, installing Linux was a pretty smooth experience, with the exception of the Debian wifi problem.

UDMA CF cards work in Epson P-3000 photo viewer

2013-01-29T03:16:00.001-05:00

The Epson P-3000 photo viewer is a nice piece of equipment for a photographer to have, allowing you to back up 120 GB of photographic data [1] and view photos on a 4" screen with histogram and shooting data. But it's very old. So, it's surprisingly nice that it still works with the most advanced compact flash cards. I successfully backed up Lexar 1000x UDMA 7 16 GB compact flash cards to the Epson P-3000.

Off-ice hockey shooting practice tips

2012-12-30T23:31:00.001-05:00

On the backhand, you really need to push down hard with your bottom hand. Don't lift the blade too quickly. The puck should roll down the entire length of the blade.

For the slap shot, alignment of the puck is critical. Unlike the other types of shots (wrist shot, snap shot, backhand), you don't start with the puck on your blade. So you must precisely position the puck beforehand. I find that a good position can be determined by this method. Hold your stick at your side, near your hip. About a skate length behind the heel touches the ice is a good distance from your body. Then position the puck somewhere in the middle of your feet. When you're still a novice at the slap shot, look down at the puck while you shoot. That makes it easier.

Regarding the wrist shot and snap shot, the violent, fast push-pull and snap is critical. If you don't do it fast enough, you won't be able to lift the puck very much.

For all shots, practice shooting both from the side and facing the net.

As you get better, try stickhandling a bit before you shoot, like in a game situation. For a backhand, push the puck forward and pull it back for the shot. You need to pull the puck in pretty close to get off a decent backhand. For snap shots, try a toe drag. Or try loading and shooting many pucks in a row -- to get the feel of a quick release.

Extra stuff to work on:

one-timers (requires a band or bungee cord)
forehand and backhand passes (requires a band or bungee cord)
toe drags (requires a band or bungee cord)
saucer passes

More on breakouts

2012-10-07T17:20:00.000-04:00

These are my notes from the video "Break Out Techniques and Tips" by hockeyus.com

General tips

Open up to the teammate giving you the pass. Do this by doing a forward to backwards transition.

When you catch the pass, keep your feet moving. If you can't catch the pass moving, you need to get rid of the puck fast and make sure you step away from the wall. You need to be away from the wall so you have room to do things. You could chip the puck high off the glass, pass to the center, make a bounce pass, or make a move around a defender.

Don't pass to the center if he/she isn't open. If you are under heavy pressure, catch the puck and protect the puck against the wall. Keep the puck between your feet and put your stick between you and the defenseman.

If the passer isn't ready and you get to the hash marks, you need to stop and wait for the pass.

Breakout on the weak side

Skate down the middle of the ice from the point.
Do forwards to backwards transition and skate diagonally up towards the hash marks.
Catch puck on your backhand.

Or if the pass comes earlier:

Skate down the middle of the ice from the point.
Do forwards to backwards transition and open up to the passer with your forehand.
Catch puck on your forehand.

If you catch the puck on your forehand, you can make a quick bounce pass off the boards.

Breakout on the strong side

Skate down the middle of the ice from the point.
Do forwards to backwards transition and open up to the passer with your forehand, while skating backwards.
Catch puck on your forehand.

In this situation, it's easy to 1) make a touch pass back to the passer, 2) make a bounce pass off your backhand, or 3) make a backhand chip off the glass and out.

If you don't have any pressure on you and you see that defenseman is going to wrap the puck around the glass,

Skate down the middle of the ice from the point.
Do a hockey turn near the goal line and keep skating forward (no transition).
Catch puck on your backhand while moving.

Cal Newport on following your passion

2012-10-03T16:29:00.001-04:00

Cal Newport recently came out with a new book So Good They Can't Ignore You. Part of his central thesis is that "following your passion" and similar cliches given at graduation speeches are terrible advice.

I've followed Cal Newport's blog for years and he's been preaching this for many months. I agree with his idea, though I find his message kind of simplistic and I think he could explain it better.

I think that he's mainly pushing back against the cliche of "following your passion." There are a few jobs where passion is very common. Many people who go into sports, art, music, acting were children who saw adults doing something and decided they wanted to do it to. But most jobs aren't tangible like that. A lot of people got to their successful, fulfilling career through some circuitous route. The main point is that typically there is no easy obvious route to the wonderful career.

I went to a government career panel (for PhD scientists) and one of the panelists said that he talked to some other guys and they all agreed that they came to their current job in a circuitous route. It was only in hindsight that they could see how each choice they made along the way brought them to where they are now. It was perfectly logical now, but there's no way they could have predicted it when they were just beginning their working life.

Everyone will have preferences for some kinds of work over others and that is not something that should be ignored. But it might not be a overwhelmingly "passionate" preference -- like falling in love. The problem with a statement like "follow your passion" is that it makes it sound like the ideal career choice will suddenly come to you in a fit of heavenly inspiration. Like how a naive teenager might think that the first person they fall in love with is the person they'll marry for life.

There is also the pressure of living in a highly competitive world and opportunity cost. Life is much easier if you picked the "right" path from the start, went to the right college and majored in the right subject, etc. Yes, that is true, but there should be more discussion of how mild "failure" and changing directions is normal in a career.

On paying attention

2012-09-11T19:55:00.002-04:00

I recently had a conversation with someone I had never met before -- and the remarkable thing was that she devoted her entire attention to me. I could feel her looking intently at me, with full eye contact. She let me talk for a long time without interruption. How rare and special is it to have someone focused on you and not distracted by other things?

Functional fitness

2012-07-26T17:23:00.001-04:00

I've been rehabbing a groin pull and at my last session, I asked my physical therapist what his workout routine was. He said he does Olympic style lifting and body weight stuff (pushups, pull-ups, planks, etc) several times a week. He emphasized that he believes in "functional fitness." He said that a lift like the bench press is not a good exercise because you would never do anything like that in real life. The only purpose of the bench press is as a measurement of upper body strength, so you can compare to other people.. He thought that the true measure of fitness is: "can you pull a person out of a burning car?"... "if you're dangling off a cliffside, can you pull yourself up?" He's a huge fan of pushups (instead of the bench press). He also really likes squats and deadlifts, which work the posterior chain. I asked him about the TRX and he said it was a useful device because it allows you to work out your back, which is hard to do in bodyweight exercises.

Song of the day: "Rubber Duckie" from Sesame Street

2012-07-14T22:45:00.000-04:00

I never thought one could perform "Rubber Duckie" but Jane Krakowski, Tony Award winner and pro singer, did it in her cabaret concert.

I thought it was hilarious. Maybe one of these days, I'll perform it as a joke.

Rubber Duckie,
You're the one,
You make bath time,
Lots of fun!
Rubber Duckie,
I'm awfully fond of you!
(bo-bo-bo-do)

Rubber Duckie,
Joy of joy,
When I squeeze you, you make noise,
Rubber Duckie,
You're my very best friend, it's true
(ohhh)

Every day,
When I
Make my way to the tubby,
I find a
Little fella who's
Cute and yella,
And chubby!
(rub-a-dub-a-dubby)

Rubber duckie,
You're so fine.
And I'm lucky that you're mine.

Rubber duckie,
I'm awfully fond of ...
Rubber duckie,
I'd love a whole pond of...
Rubber duckie,
I'm awfully fond of you.

Song of the day: "Let's Do It" by Cole Porter

2012-06-14T01:48:00.001-04:00

One of my all-time favorite songs! I don't know why I didn't post it before... must have forgot. Cole Porter writes the best ridiculously exuberant, witty songs. I love Ella Fitzgerald's performance.

When the little bluebird
Who has never said a word
Starts to sing "spring spring"
When the little bluebell
In the bottom of the dell
Starts to ring "ding ding"
When the little blue clerk
In the middle of his work
Sings a song to the moon above
It is nature that's all
Simply telling us to fall in love

And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

In Spain, the best upper sets do it
Lithuanians and Letts do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

The Dutch in old Amsterdam do it
Not to mention the Finns
Folks in Siam do it - think of Siamese twins
Some Argentines, without means, do it
People say in Boston even beans do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

And that's why, sponges, they do it
Oysters down in Oyster Bay do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

And that's why
Cold Cape Cod clams, 'gainst their wish, do it
Even lazy jellyfish, do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

Electric eels, I might add, do it
Though it shocks 'em I know
Why ask, why ask, if shad do it
Waiter, "bring me, bring me shad roe, come on an' bring me shad roe!"

In shallow shores, English soles do it
Goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

If the birds and the bees and the trees do it
The educated and uneducated fleas do it
The Beatles and the Animals, Sonny and Cher
Elizabeth and Richard, him and her
And if 007 James Bond can do it too
Well we can do it -- let's fall in love

Song of the day: "Is That All There Is?" by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

2012-06-13T12:23:00.002-04:00

I came across this somewhat disturbing existential song, at a performance of "Sleep No More." It was famously performed by Peggy Lee. The lyrics listed here are based off her performance.

(spoken)
I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire.
I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up in his arms
And raced through the burning building out to the pavement.
I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames.
And when it was all over I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to a fire?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

(spoken)
And when I was 12 years old, my daddy took me to the circus, the greatest show on earth.
There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears and a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads.
And as I sat there watching, I had the feeling that something was missing.
I don't know what, but when it was over I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to a circus?"
"Is that all there is?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

(spoken)
And then I fell in love with the most wonderful boy in the world.
We'd take long walks down by the river or just sit for hours gazing into each other's eyes.
We were so very much in love. And then one day, he went away.
And I thought I'd die, but I didn't.
And when I didn't, I said to myself,
"Is that all there is to love?"

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep ...

(spoken)
I know what you must be saying to yourselves.
"If that's the way she feels about it, why doesn't she just end it all?"
Oh, no. Not me. I'm not ready for that final disappointment.
'Cause I know just as well as I'm standing here talking to you,
When that final moment comes when I'm breathing my last breath,
I'll be saying to myself...

(sung)
Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
If that's all there is, my friends,
Then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze
And have a ball
If that's all there is.

Thought of the day: The best intellectual training

2012-05-30T20:51:00.000-04:00

At the risk of sounding self-serving and elitist, I think the best intellectual training is mathematics and physics. These subjects are the most challenging to learn due to their abstract nature and extremely difficult to pick up as an adult (maybe as difficult as learning a musical instrument or foreign language as an adult). There are many claims that mathematicians and theoretical physicists make their biggest discoveries before the age of 40. Mathematicians and physicists have a reputation for being "smart" and after a long period of reluctance and doubt, I have to agree that this reputation is well-deserved.

If you know math and physics, it's easy to pick up almost everything else. I'm not saying you'll achieve a deep understanding of literature, history, or business, but you'll be able to learn it pretty fast and be decent at it. My friend remarked that the coolest people are the scientists who are the top in their field and interested in everything. Unfortunately, these people are a minority. The rest are rather one-dimensional and dull company. (Her opinion, not mine.)

I think that the other difficult fields to pick up are visual art and music. They are also quite abstract. Artists are trained to "see" in a special way; they can translate what they see into an artistic representation (often translating 3D into 2D). By visual art, I'm talking about drawing and painting, not photography (which is kind of a technological cheat). Musicians innately understand rhythm and scales.

I've heard that philosophy is the best intellectual training if you restrict yourself to humanities fields. I'm not really sure about social science. Those are interesting subjects, but I think if you just want to be a great thinker, you're better off starting with math and physics.

So I guess if I had a child, I would have him/her learn art, music, math, and physics, plus a couple foreign languages.

Thought of the day: Detail vs ideas

2012-05-29T19:51:00.000-04:00

I find it easy to get overwhelmed by details, particularly in science where most research reveals around investigating one specific detail. There are so many facts and things to remember that I end up feeling hopeless and depressed.

So now I want to do something different. Instead start from the big idea and then go looking for the details that support and illuminate the idea. Reading scientific papers (which are usually not well-written) is like wading through a sea of details and hoping to re-construct the big idea that encompasses them. Very difficult and painful.

Encounter with a theater junkie

2012-05-28T20:34:00.002-04:00

Last night, I went to a cabaret concert and I sat next to a woman who is basically a theater junkie. She told me that she goes to off-off-off Broadway shows. She doesn't like Broadway shows. I'm guessing probably because it's too commercial and expensive. She's a member of a discount club which has great deals (usually 50% off) on shows, ranging from musicals to plays to circus acts to radio theater. I had no idea people still did radio theater in the US! She gave me some great recommendations on things to see. Some shows she really liked: a radio theater thing, a circus act performed by people with "beautiful bodies", a transsexual artist doing a tribute to another famous artist. And we bonded over our love of opera. These kinds of encounters are unique and special -- I'm extremely grateful. I don't know any theater junkies so it's really hard to get into it.

Link of the day: "How to Live Unhappily Ever After"

2012-05-27T19:26:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, I read this essay by Augusten Burroughs in the Wall Street Journal about how happiness is overrated.

In particular, I like this passage:

The truth about healing is that heal is a television word. Someone close to you dies? You will never heal. What will happen is, for the first few days, the people around you will touch your shoulder and this will startle you and remind you to breathe. You will feel as though you will soon be dead from natural causes; the weight of the grief will be physical and very nearly unbearable.

Eventually, you will shower and leave the house. Maybe in a year you will see a movie. And one day somebody will say something and it will cause you to laugh. And you will clamp your hand over your mouth because you laughed and that laugh will break your heart, it will feel like a betrayal. How can you laugh?

In time, to your friends, you will appear to have recovered from your loss. All that really happened, you'll think, is that the hole in the center of your life has narrowed just enough to be concealed by a laugh. And yet, you might feel a pressure for it to be true. You might feel that "enough" time has passed now, that the hole at the center of you should not be there at all.

I imagine that there are some depressed people out there who simply get better and better at lying, at covering up their darkness, for the sake of maintaining their social life and relationships. Even the closest, most understanding of friends will eventually tire of negativity.

Augusten Burroughs is the famed author of Running with Scissors -- which I have not read.

Thought of the day: Direct Studies for scientists?

2012-05-23T20:50:00.000-04:00

I have heard a lot of good things about the Directed Studies program at Yale. It's an elective program for freshmen undergraduates. For their first two semester, the students take three classes covering "literature, philosophy, and historical and political thought."

My impression is that it's a survey of the foundations of Western culture. It helps people understand where many Western ideas came from, for example, democracy -- an idea we take for granted. The professors encourage a lot of discussion and deep thinking. Directed Studies teaches young people how to think. In the Boston Globe, one of the Directed Studies professors argues why the program and those like it are important:

The first is that there is more than one good answer to the question of what living is for. A second is that the number of such answers is limited, making it possible to study them in an organized way. A third is that the answers are irreconcilably different, necessitating a choice among them. A fourth is that the best way to explore these answers is to study the great works of philosophy, literature, and art in which they are presented with lasting beauty and strength. And a fifth is that their study should introduce students to the great conversation in which these works are engaged - Augustine warily admiring Plato, Hobbes reworking Aristotle, Paine condemning Burke, Eliot recalling Dante, recalling Virgil, recalling Homer - and help students find their own authentic voice as participants in the conversation.

Would it be possible to make an equivalent for science? How would you cover the history of science? What would be the book list? I'm guessing that constructing a science version of Directed Studies would be pretty difficult. Scientific ideas, especially from physics and math, are very abstract and difficult to grasp. If you don't have a good base of math, physics, chemistry, and biology, it'd be hard to have discussions. Moreover, the way that these subjects are taught in K-12 doesn't help. Students are taught to memorize and apply recipes. I don't think freshmen would have enough background. The only book I can think of that would work is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

What a scientist should be able to do

2012-05-22T15:46:00.000-04:00

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
- Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I was thinking about what are the skills a scientist should have. What do you think a grad student should know at the end, after they finish their PhD?

Technical skills - mathematics, programming/numerics, lab techniques, etc
Writing - ability to write good scientific papers that are clear, concise, and well-motivated
Presentations - ability to write good presentations and deliver them well, this is closely related to writing
Comprehension - ability to distill the important ideas from a paper or presentation, ability to tell the difference between crappy research and good research
Process - (advanced) ability to come up with concrete ways/experiments to answer questions, ability to overcome deadends in research, ability to stay organized, keep good records, and manage other people
Community - talking to people including those outside your field, attending seminars/conferences, convincing people your research is important, building a network of trusted friends who you can turn to for feedback and support
Creativity - ability to understand the difference between good and bad ideas/questions, (advanced) ability to come up with interesting questions that are soluble
Resilience - ability to stay positive and motivated even when the research isn't going very well

I am by no means an expert on this subject.

Link of the day: Three styles for writing a (scientific) paper

2012-05-21T14:18:00.000-04:00

My sister alerted me to a nice explanation of how a scientific paper should be written. The author, Prof. Stuart Shieber, describes three styles of writing a paper and which one you should use.

The first is the "continental" style in which you simply state the idea and show the data/proof. I think the name "continental" refers to those continental breakfasts where you choose whatever you want to eat from a buffet. This kind of paper has no motivation and to readers who are not experienced, makes it seem like you are really smart. It's also unreadable.

The second style is the "historical" style. It's kind of like writing a diary where you describe all the mistakes you made, how you changed your research direction, etc. A lot of students fall into writing in this way because they're doing their first big research project, it's all new to them, and they think their work is really important or want to explain how much they suffered during the process. The problem with this approach is that there is a lot of stuff the reader doesn't need to know and also, it might make you look like an idiot.

The third style is the "rational reconstruction" style. It's kind of a middle-of-the-road style between "continental" and "historical." You present an ideal history which only shows the steps that motivate your final result. It's kind of like if you made a movie of your life -- you would want to show the important events and tie them together in a consistent, meaningful manner. Sometimes you might need to embellish or downplay something a little to make the story more coherent or engaging.

The concise version:

"Continental" style - you state the idea without any motivation -> makes you look like a genius, at least to those whom you can fool into thinking that unreadable papers are brilliant

"Historical" style - you provide a diary of your research containing all the mistakes and changes in direction you made -> makes you look like an idiot

"Rational reconstruction" style - you give an ideal history, only present the relevant steps and motivate everything properly -> the one you should use

Thought of the day: The self-aware learner

2012-05-20T12:06:00.000-04:00

A lot of life seems to be learning self-awareness. Some major examples are being self-aware of your mental/emotional state and being self-aware of your learning process. No one teaches us these things, and few people talk about them.

Actually, that's not completely correct. You go to therapy and talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist/etc. There are different schools of psychology. One of the main branches is psychoanalysis, whose goal is to help the patient understand themselves.

As to learning processes, we spend so much of our lives in school yet we never spend any time thinking about how we learn. Meta-learning is an important topic. As the old cliched saying goes, it's so much more useful to teach someone how to fish than to fish for them. What type of learner are you? Visual? Kinesthetic? When you're confronted with a subject you know a little about it but not very much, how do you approach learning it? How can we teach people how to learn?

One way is project-based learning. Often, a class ends with a one-month long project. This tends to be very short-term and driven by trying to do an adequate enough job for an A. Maybe it would be better to have a class that is entirely focused on a project. Still, that is only a few months in a college course.

How about craft learning? What if you want to be a world-class hockey player or musician or mathematician? This isn't something that can be encapsulated in a class. You need to do a hobby on a semi-serious level for a year or so to get a taste of this. For example, I spent a year learning photography. After a year, I mastered all the basic technical stuff and had gotten a taste of the different fields (e.g. event, portrait, landscape photography). I could recognize what were the big ideas in photography. The use of light and shadow. Colors - warm vs cool colors. Right now, I could probably make a list of what general ideas every photographer should master. Then if you told me what type of photography you wanted to become (say macro), I could write a list of what technical skills you should work on.

Some of the greatest musicians/athletes/actors/etc had a parent who guided them from day one, telling them what to focus on, what skill to learn. A really neat story is László Polgár training his daughters into chess grandmasters. Or they grew up in an area teeming with the best in their field -- like actors and musicians who grew up in New York. These kids could go to the theatre and see world class productions, or find teachers affiliated with Julliard.

What I learned at the defense industry career panel

2012-05-14T20:18:00.000-04:00

This afternoon, I went to a panel about doing science in government, mostly defense work. It was the best career event I've ever been to. The three panelists were diverse, interesting, charismatic, down-to-earth, and genuinely helpful. All three had PhDs in science/engineering. I'm relating what I learned from memory, so the account below is not entirely accurate.

The first panelist was a man who works in a technology office. He said that nowadays he mostly signs checks. But back in the day, he did all sorts of cool defense research. He even slept on an aircraft carrier. He recommended that we cyberstalk as much as possible to get a job. He told us that he gets to work at 6 am and has an hour before everyone else shows up. That's the perfect time for an informational interview over the phone. He also cyberstalks, from the hiring end. When he Googles people, he likes to see that they have varied experiences, for example, doing charity work in a poor area. He believed that the PhD is a degree in perseverance. He got his PhD while working full-time, though towards the end when he was writing his thesis, he got a few days off a week. Also, it was interesting when he asked how many people in the room (mostly science grad students and postdocs) wanted to be rich. Almost no one raised their hand. He claimed that MIT, almost everyone raised their hand. He told us that the young should not go into policy, that was something for later in one's career if you still wanted to do it. I don't recall the exact reason. Overall, he was very matter-of-fact and blunt, with strong opinions.

The second panelist was a Eastern European woman who worked in the bioweapons office. She emphasized that her PhD had nothing to do with bioweapons. The most interesting thing was that she was also in the Army reserve and had officer rank. But because of her Eastern European background and accent, people didn't believe that she was in the Army. They asked "which army?" She remarked that she felt just as loyal to the US as anyone else, because she had to swear allegiance twice -- first to become a US citizen, then to join the Army. She also made a comment about Eastern Europe being very different than America. For example, the joke is that if an officer tells a US soldier to jump, the soldier say "how high?" An Eastern European soldier would ask "why?"

The last panelist was a guy who works with scientists from many fields. He gave the example of having a discussion about weapons with a biologist, chemist, and physicist. His job was to bring everyone together and synthesize the different ideas and perspectives. He had a very unusual background. He was half-Hispanic and half-German and grew up on the West Coast. His father was a rocket engineer so he grew up learning about rockets. But he never actually studied engineering in college. He stressed the importance of learning different subjects. He himself felt that his study of jazz in college really helped him become a good thinker, even though the subject seems to have nothing in common with science. (I emailed him a few days after the panel and he said it's important to have hobbies not just because they make you smarter, but also for the sake of your sanity.) He also said that a while back, he was on a job panel and when the panelists compared notes, they realized that they had never planned their job path. Stuff just happened. They had no idea what they were doing at the time; only looking back retroactively, could they construct a "logical" path. He recommended just doing whatever you find interesting instead of scheming some plan to work your way to the top.

To summarize, here are some of the most interesting (and subjective) things I learned:

Cyberstalk as much as possible to get a job.
For many people, phone calls are easiest very early in the morning.
Don't do policy when you're young.
If you enjoy studying peripheral seemingly useless subjects, don't worry. They'll be surprisingly useful in subtle ways.
There is no coherent job path. So just do whatever you find interesting. Life is too short.

Thought of the day: Inspired connections

2012-05-12T12:05:00.001-04:00

I realized that talking to really smart people inspires me to say smart things that I didn't think I knew. Well, that's not completely accurate, more like the underlying thoughts were already there, but talking to someone smarter than you provides the spark that allows you to connect those thoughts. My advisor said that it feels like the words just come out of your mouth. For me, the words feel so new and fresh that it's hard to believe it's me saying them. As if someone else were talking and I'm just an observer.

Thought of the day: Being a minority

2012-05-08T13:42:00.001-04:00

The problem of women in science (or whatever you want to call it) is a fundamentally a problem of being a minority. Many areas of life were traditionally run by white, straight men, and even in the 21st century, it's very hard to break in. Being a minority is always hard. I've been on a sports team where I was surrounded by people were 20 years older, with families, and middle class jobs. The fact that we were all female didn't really matter much. Then I played with a sports club where there were a lot of guys (some women) but they were all around my age and studying science. Much better!

A woman developer gave a talk about making the developing community more female friendly and she has some good examples to illustrate what it's like to be a minority.

So what does it feel like to be a woman in open source? Jono Bacon, at the Community Leadership Summit on the weekend, said — addressing the guys in the room — that if you want to know what it’s like to be a woman in open source, go and get your nails done at a salon. He did this a week or so back, and when he walked into the salon he realised he was the only man there, and felt kind of out of place.

Another example someone suggested is walking into a sports bar on game night wearing the wrong team’s jersey. It can be the most friendly sports bar in the universe, but you’re still going to feel pretty awkward.

So as a woman in open source, it can be a bit like that. You walk into a space, and you feel like you stand out. And there’s enormous pressure to perform well, in case any mistake you make reflects on everyone of your gender.

So if you're lobbying to make life better for women in science, don't make yourself look like a man-hater. Your colleagues are probably white, straight, male, and speak English. They've never been a minority so they just don't know what it's like. Talk to them and educate them.

Thought of the day: Becoming an autodidact

2012-05-07T23:06:00.002-04:00

I've found that the most useful skill to develop is the ability to teach myself. Recently, I found out that the term for this is "autodidact." I wonder if teaching oneself has general principles itself. Here are some of the methods I use to teach myself:

What is universal? What are the most important concepts?
This is a typical physicist perspective. For example, for photography, I might say the important ideas are light and shadow, the quality of light (diffuse or harsh), warm vs cool colors.
How is this field different from similar fields?
In physics, we tend to be concerned with finding clean, beautiful, logically consistent mathematical rules for explaining nature. In biology, people are trying to model complicated, messy, real systems.
What is the progression?
You want to identify where to start, where to end, and how to progress in between. If you don't have a progression, you have no idea how far you have to go or what you've accomplished and it's easy to become frustrated. To learn hockey, you start with skating, then progress to stickhandling and shooting, and finally tactics and teamwork.
Read interviews with important people in the field.
They'll identify what's important. I learned a lot about narrative and character by reading interviews with distinguished actors.
Listen to what people in the field say or read forums.
This is a bit trickier because you have to find the right people -- hopefully intelligent, articulate types. This might not be easy. I read theater forums sometimes. I found one forum where people frequently trash shows (though there were some insightful comments if you sifted the wheat from the chaff). The Sondheim specific forum was better because people were more interested in analyzing the shows than shoving their opinions down people's throats.
Find a partner.
I've never done this, but if you can find someone at a similar level and you get along well, this could be dynamite. You can hang out together, support each other, inspire ideas, etc. I guess this is not being an autodidact, but who cares.

If you try to learn several unrelated fields, you'll start to see patterns and that will make it easier to pickup more subjects.